What is the context?
Some astrologers bring a malicious accusation against the Jews. They repeat the king’s command and its penalty before naming Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego.
The accusation emphasizes that these are men the king appointed to manage Babylon’s province. Their refusal to serve his gods and worship his statue is presented as disregard for him.
Their official positions do not remove the conflict of loyalty. Service in the king’s government has not made them willing to give the worship he demands.
How is this passage commonly understood?
Henry and Wesley read the conflict through the duty to obey God rather than comply with sinful worship. The accusation brings that commitment into a public confrontation with the ruler.
Daniel is not named among the accused. The chapter does not explain his whereabouts, so the three men’s situation should not be filled out with an invented account of what he was doing.
What is our position?
We don't have a position on this passage yet. When our study reaches a conclusion the text supports, it will appear here.